Slashdot Mirror
Congress Declares War on File Leakers
An anonymous reader submits "Bush is expected to sign a law that essentially makes it a crime punishable by up to three years in jail for a user to put a single 'copy of a film, software program or music file in a shared folder and should have known the copyrighted work had not been commercially released.' Whichever side you're on in the copyright debate, you have to agree this legislation is draconian and excessive, to say the least."
...please note that Dianne Feinstein, a prominent Democrat, is a co-sponsor.
The Army reading list
Kenneth Lay stole US$7 trillion from Enron and he gets off scott free WITH the money while the employees have all lose their pensions. But the poor guy who shares a file ends in jail.
Dyncorp sells children for sex in the Balcans, but thanks to their friend Rumsfeld, they get off scott free. But the guy in Colorado who loads a plate of salad at a salad bar at a Chuck E. Cheese gets beaten up by the police.
These are facts.
Iran captures three CIA agents
You were saying?
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Remember that bittorrent works by uploading and downloading at the same time - ie if you download a torrent of a film, you're also distributing it.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN001 67:@@@P
FTA:
"The bill's supporters in Congress won passage of the prison terms by gluing them to an unrelated proposal to legalize technologies that delete offensive content from a film. That proposal was designed to address a lawsuit that Hollywood studios and the Directors Guild of America filed against ClearPlay over a DVD player that filtered violent and nude scenes."
I hate riders like this.
It's three years maximum.
Mmmm.. Donuts
If you've got a CD of the music, obviously it was released. This bill criminalizes violation of copyright on unreleased works, not copyright violation in general.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Write 1000 times: "It's called copyright. There is nothing like a 'copywrite'."
From the Washington Post:
Note that judges were not required before this to always impose the "maximum possible sentence", but rather one determined by sentencing guidelines. And now, with the SCOTUS ruling, the guidelines are purely advisory.
In addition, federal prosecutors retain prosecutorial discretion. So you're 0/2.
I think you're a tool, so it's ok for me to duplicate your house keys. Right?
I think you have weapons of mass destruction. I'm going to declare war on you and kill your children.
Among them, Feinstein and Leahy.
Couple of well-known right-wing Republicans there.
Oh, wait...
> A literal reading of this would say that some music files that I and a few
:}
> friends made and put online are going to become illegal. Consider:
(snip)
> Are they really making it illegal for people to put their own files online
> without first releasing them commercially?
(snip)
No.
The problem was taking a literal reading from news.com.com instead of the actual law
See the law here for a copy of the quote below...
(Sec. 103) Establishes criminal penalties for willful copyright infringement by the distribution of a computer program, musical work, motion picture or other audiovisual work, or sound recording being prepared for commercial distribution by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if the person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
(bold added by me)
It's only going to be illegal to give something away for free if both:
a) it was a copyright infringement, and
b) it was being created Only for the purpose of selling
In your case, as you are the copyright holder of your own works, you can distribute them anyway you see fit, thus are not infringing copyright in the first place.
Second, for someone else whom you did not grant license to, whom does infringe on your copyright and distributes your work aginst your will, this law only applies if you 1) intended to sell it, and 2) that should have been known.
As you said, you have given scripts and files away in the past on your site for free, so even if I broke in to your system and grabbed some files and put them out there on the net, I can claim I had no idea you planned to sell those works since your track record so far is to release them for free. This law would not apply then.
It definatly only applies to people who only* make things in life to make a buck off them.
*(It almost has to be only and not usually/sometimes/occasionally, as that does not satisfy the 'should have known' clause of the law)
Now, if it was taken from a company/corporation instead of a person, i'm sure the court will rule 'should have known' to be in the 'always true' logic state, as its rare to have an answer for 'what else do companys exist for?'
there's plenty of legally free content out there to download
Right! And that's not what this thread is about. We're talking about stuff that's prematurely, and without authorization, lifted from industry "screener" distributions, and pumped out over p2p networks so that people can be cheap bastards and avoid paying for their entertainment. The person I'm responding to was not championing material meant to be free, or celebrating his access to it - he's "grinning," as he puts it, at the fact that he can keep downloading non-free material because the legislation in question doesn't address that side of the two-party action of distributing the pirated goods.
gee there's a concept, paying for *live* music, the way music was heard originally
Great idea! I see you're also a fan of hand-writing paper letters, just like the good old days. None of this typing on a computer and using the internet for you, no sir!
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
A literal reading of this would say that some music files that I and a few friends made and put online are going to become illegal.
You might want to try literally reading the actual bill, rather than the writeup in either news.com or the story submission.
Why would you or your friends' distribution of your own works be illegal? Even under the writeup's language, that doesn't make sense. The bill appears to amend the criminal infringement provisions to provide for up to 3 years of jail for distributing even one copy of a pre-release work that the person knew or should have known is intended for release. But that has to do with the penalty for a specific method of infringement, not the definition of infringement. Obviously in your situation there's no infringement to begin with.
I suppose this wouldn't be surprising, coming from the Bush administration.
Cheap shot that makes no sense. Congress writes and then agrees to legislation. The president signs the agreed-to legislation into law. This legislation (1) doesn't "come" from the Bush administration, and (2) in any case it was passed unanimously by the Senate and overwhelmingly by the House. Note that you can't tell what the vote was in the House because they approved it by voice vote -- that's when the presiding officer listens to the representatives yell "yea" or "nay" and judges who wins by which is louder. I am not making that up. The fact that the voice vote was enough (I believe roll call vote is automatic if even one person objects to using voice vote)tells you how easily this passed the House. Like it or not, this was a fully bipartisan bill.
S.167
Title: A bill to provide for the protection of intellectual property rights, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] (introduced 1/25/2005) Cosponsors (4)
Related Bills: H.R.357
Latest Major Action: 4/19/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
House Reports: 109-33 Part 1
Text of Bill
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Someone should pass a bill that makes this sort of act illegal. That Simpsons episode where they go to Washington comes to mind. Behold the paper clip!
In fact, there is a Libertarian group trying to eliminate this shady practice and also force politicians to actually READ the laws they pass. Check it out here: Downsize DC
I think, therefore I doh.
I'm currently in a criminal justice class, and I have to say, as far as I can tell, deterrance has been thrown out the window as not working at all.
What we use instead now is a mix of punishment (eye for an eye), rehabilitation (make criminal a part of society again), and Renumeration (heal the harm done community/society).
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
Like this? I just replaced every " " with " ".
S 167 RH
Union Calendar No. 16
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 167
[Report No. 109-33, Part I]
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 2, 2005
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
April 12, 2005
Reported from the Committee on the Judiciary
April 12, 2005
Committee on House Administration discharged; committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
AN ACT
To provide for the protection of intellectual property rights, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005'.
TITLE I--ARTISTS' RIGHTS AND THEFT PREVENTION
SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the `Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2005' or the `ART Act'.
SEC. 102. CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR UNAUTHORIZED RECORDING OF MOTION PICTURES IN A MOTION PICTURE EXHIBITION FACILITY.
(a) In General- Chapter 113 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 2319A the following new section:
`Sec. 2319B. Unauthorized recording of Motion pictures in a Motion picture exhibition facility
`(a) Offense- Any person who, without the authorization of the copyright owner, knowingly uses or attempts to use an audiovisual recording device to transmit or make a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work protected under title 17, or any part thereof, from a performance of such work in a motion picture exhibition facility, shall--
`(1) be imprisoned for not more than 3 years, fined under this title, or both; or
`(2) if the offense is a second or subsequent offense, be imprisoned for no more than 6 years, fined under this title, or both.
The possession by a person of an audiovisual recording device in a motion picture exhibition facility may be considered as evidence in any proceeding to determine whether that person committed an offense under this subsection, but shall not, by itself, be sufficient to support a conviction of that person for such offense.
`(b) Forfeiture and Destruction- When a person is convicted of a violation of subsection (a), the court in its judgment of conviction shall, in addition to any penalty provided, order the forfeiture and destruction or other disposition of all unauthorized copies of motion pictures or other audiovisual works protected under title 17, or parts thereof, and any audiovisual recording devices or other equipment used in connection with the offense.
`(c) Authorized Activities- This section does not prevent any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or by a person acting under a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State.
`(d) Immunity for Theaters- With reasonable cause, the owner or lessee of a motion picture exhibition facility where a motion picture or other audiovisual work is being exhibited, the authorized agent or employee of such owner or lessee, the licensor of the motion picture or other audiovisual work being exhibited, or the agent or employee of such licensor--
`(1) may detain, in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time, any person suspected of a violation of this section with respect to that motion picture or audiovisual work for the purpose of questioning or summoning a law enforcement officer; an
>So this is the extent to which a corporation is considered a person... it's purely financial.
/. copyright opposition crowd (considering that it seems to oppose the RIAA/MPAA, but supports copyright enforcement concerning GNU efforts)?
/., but if there were no copyright, there would be no need whatsoever for the GPL. Since copyright does exist in such a screwed up state, the GPL just seems like a commonsense response.
Not so. "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."
>I'm curious, what would be the psychological evaluation of the
I can't speak for
>I just get tired of the whole faceless corporations are evil and that's that argument.
In general, they are. They are non interested in the good of humanity, only making money. If a person dumped toxic waste somewhere that wound up giving half a town leukemia, he'd be on trial for murder. A corporation does it, and it might have to pay a fine.
>Corporations have problems (such as the issue of corporate governance) but absurd comparisons to psychopaths have got to go.
Why? They are psychopathically fixated on making money.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!